Executive Action?

On Thursday night, President Obama gave a speech about his plan for immigration reform. His plan? To allow immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for 5 years or more, have children who are citizens of the U.S., have no criminal record, and are willing to pay taxes.  In his speech he said,

“What I’m describing is accountability-a commonsense, middle ground approach: If you meet the criteria, you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. If you’re a criminal, you’ll be deported.”

We can all agree, our borders need to be secured, but this plan in particular isn’t well liked by Congress. In fact, President Obama is planning on using Executive Action to get his bill passed. Congressional Republicans are already making plans to stop Obama from using this Executive Action as they see it as a gross misuse of power. They also aren’t too happy about his executive changes to the Affordable Care Act otherwise known as Obamacare.

I have a hard time with this idea of Executive  Action. It seems the President uses this action when he disagrees with Congress or finds the system too slow. This shines a spotlight on the dysfunctional relationship between Congress and the President.

A senior policy analyst, Elizabeth Slattery had a very interesting point when she said, that President Obama once made a comment that President Bush was trying to bring more power into the executive branch and limit Congress, he promised to bring change…I have to agree with Ms. Slattery, I’m not seeing much change.  I appreciate the media’s coverage on this topic. I have seen equal coverage from both sides on this issue, not only about immigration reform but also on Executive Action. From this class, I have learned much about the relationship the government and the media hold, their constant influence on one another and the real power the media has in shaping opinion and ideas. It will be interesting to see how coverage will progress on this issue. 

Keep it SEALed

On Thursday, The Washington Post published a story about former Navy SEAL Robert O’Neill. O’Neill officially confirmed he was the one that shot Osama bin Laden back in 2011. Previously, O’Neill spoke to Esquire magazine but stayed anonymous. He chose to confirm his identity in his relation to the shooting after he was mentioned on a military blog without his permission. Since his reveal, he’s received a mostly positive response, mainly from families who lost their loved ones on 9/11. However, O’Neill has also received very negative responses, specifically from the military. The Navy SEALs have strict policy about seeking attention for your service. But is that what O’Neill was doing? Seeking attention? Or was he simply confirming his role after being revealed in a blog without his consent?  The commander and master chief of the Navy Special Warfare Command said this in response to the controversy…

“A critical tenet of their profession is to not advertise the nature of my work nor seek recognition for my action.”

After further research, I found that O’Neill’s real motivation to come forward was after meeting, this last summer, with families who lost relatives in 9/11. He had been asked to speak at the Memorial Museum and at the last minute decided to speak about Osama bin Laden’s death.  He received so much positive feedback about the amount of closure it brought people.

For these families, being able to put a name to an act we as Americans took pride in, is important. If that was O’Neill’s true motivation in revealing his name, I think he should be honored. I believe it is important for the media to treat this sensitively. If the coverage is too glorifying, some may see O’Neill’s move as one seeking attention and recognition. If they frame this in the right light-telling the whole story of the speech at Memorial Museum, O’Neill is likely to be accepted and thought highly of.  The media should also make sure to mention the entire teams important role in the take down of Osama bin Laden.